The State Council had been set up and achieved a lot but by the forties the Sri Lankan political leadership wanted more. Since, unlike in India, there had been a loyal service to the British war effort by Ceylonese political elite, as represented by the Board of Ministers. A Commission led by Lord Soulbury was sent to Ceylon to commence discussions on self-government during the war. The ensuring achievement of Independence and the power of the Prime Minister under the Soulbury Constitution was the subject of Chapter 8.

It was D. S. Senanayake who during the Second World War presided over the negotiations towards independence. Though initially only a larger measure of self-government was being considered by the commission, the logic of history and the imminent independence of India prompted Britain to agree to the request for independence. The new Constitution, under which Ceylon became independent in February 1948, abolished the State Council, which had encouraged a sense of responsibility regarding government in all members of the legislature. It introduced instead an oppositional system that was based almost entirely on the British Cabinet system. After Parliament was elected, the person who commanded the confidence of a majority of the members of Parliament was appointed Prime Minister, and he then appointed a Cabinet to exercise executive power.

Consensus buildingA consequence of this was that the consensus building system of the Donoughmore Constitution and the Executive Committee system it had set up, went into oblivion. Politics began to be polarized and fault lines began to appear in the body politic and fault lines based differences between rich and poor.

In the first Parliament that was elected there was no clear majority for any single party. However, D.S. Senanayake managed to put together a coalition, consisting of his own United National Party (with which S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike had already merged his Sinhala Maha Sabha), Goonesinha’s Labour Party, G.G. Ponnambalam’s Tamil Congress and some other independent politicians. The British system (or the Westminster system, as it is termed, after the site of the British Parliament), institutionalises oppositional politics. Accordingly, Sri Lanka now had a leader of the Opposition, N.M. Perera, who was the leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Pakshaya, a Trotskyist grouping. The Opposition included other Marxist parties and also a breakaway group from the Tamil Congress, the Federal Party (FP) led by S.J.V. Chelvanayakam.

Citizenship Bill The Tamil Congress had split because of opposition to a measure introduced by D.S. Senanayake’s government after the elections in 1947. Alarmed, perhaps, by the large number of votes won by left parties from Indian Tamils (who were well unionized), and perhaps influenced by racist considerations, Senanayake introduced a Bill to restrict citizenship. Indian Tamils were, in effect, rendered stateless, and though this was based on the idea that they were migrant labourers whom the British had brought over temporarily, it took no account of the fact that many had in fact settled in Sri Lanka. Not only were those who had come over to work recently denied citizenship, but even those who had been born in Sri Lanka had to satisfy various requirements if they wanted citizenship. These requirements included certification of the place of birth of father, grandfather and great-grandfather. This was practically impossible, given the paucity of records in those days.

G.G. Ponnambalam, despite opposing the provisions, remained in the government. Chelvanayakam and a substantial section of the Tamil Congress saw this measure as the thin end of a wedge designed to entrench a majoritarian approach to politics. They advocated federalism, a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, as the only solution to the continuing deprivation of minority rights.

Tamils, however, were by and large undisturbed and in the next election held in 1952 continued to vote for the Tamil Congress in the North and the UNP in the rest of the country, including the East and the North. As the country followed the British system, which endows majorities with massive powers that are not usually abused given British conventions, most Sri Lankans did not see the dangers of the system they had been given.

SafeguardsSri Lankans, in effect, did not realize the formulaic and hence largely useless manner in which the British had transposed the safeguards included in the British system to Sri Lanka. Britain for instance, has two Houses of Parliament. The members of the second chamber, that is, the House of Lords, are not elected and do not represent any particular interests. However, it has always consisted of individuals with stature who are able and willing to challenge the government of the day. This is essential because one of the main functions of a second chamber of Parliament is to check on legislation from a vantage point unhindered by ordinary electoral considerations, and to amend the legislation put before it if this seems desirable.

A second chamber that is a mirror image of the first, and largely dependent on it, cannot therefore serve this purpose, or indeed any other. However, the Senate instituted by the Soulbury Constitution was set up as though to ensure that it had no independent identity. Half of it was elected by the first chamber of Parliament, which meant it reflected the composition of that chamber. The other half was appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, which meant the Senate was heavily weighted towards the government of the day.

There was some provision to establish a difference in the political inclinations of the two chambers, in that senators were chosen for six-year periods, with one-third of them changed every two years. Yet this effort to ensure continuity meant only that, if the government changed, for a couple of years it could expect dogmatic hostility from the Senate given the oppositional nature of the political culture that had developed. After that, generally, once more there would be indiscriminating compliance, since the new government would find ardent support from eight of the ten new senators.

IdealismTogether with their earlier supporters, and a few floaters who would rally to the support of a government in power, they could anticipate little opposition for the rest of their term in office. This was assisted by the manner in which the senators were chosen. Instead of selecting people of independent ability, as Lord Soulbury in his idealism may have anticipated, governments and even the opposition chose partisan supporters or politicians who had failed to win election to Parliament. This factor also undid the sole provision that the Soulbury Constitution had introduced to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Appointments to judicial positions were made by the government (or by a Judicial Service Commission appointed by the government). Since administration of the courts came under the purview of the minister of justice, it was desirable that the minister should not be an ordinary politician.

It was therefore, constitutionally required that the Minister of Justice (along with at least one other minister) be from the Senate. Unfortunately, though there were some ministers of justice who understood the special requirements of that position, most were on par with other politicians, and many accepted that their primary role was a political one. The other main safeguard of the Soulbury Constitution was based on the fact that, as in Britain, the Prime Minister is not the head of State and functions on behalf of the king. Similarly in Ceylon, under the Soulbury Constitution, there was a Governor-General as head of State who was appointed by the king on the advice of the Prime Minister. He was thus however obliged to the Prime Minister in a sense that a king would not be. The Governor-General then made several appointments, such as to the Judicial or Public Service Commission, on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Political powerThe last British Governor continued for a short while as the first Governor-General of independent Sri Lanka. He was replaced, on D. S. Senanayake’s recommendation, by Lord Soulbury. Though Senanayake was unlikely to risk rejection by proposing totally unsuitable persons for appointment to various positions, Soulbury in turn was unlikely to question over much. Thus, all appointments were by and large in the hands of the political power of the day, and as time went on the idea that such appointments could be based purely on political considerations came to the fore.

A measure of what was seen as Lord Soulbury’s indebtedness to Senanayake was evident in the manner in which the PM’s successor was appointed. Shortly before Senanayake died prematurely following an accident in 1951, Bandaranaike had left the government. He was convinced that Senanayake and his associates were isolating him and ensuring that he would not succeed Senanayake despite his seniority. This left John Kotelawala as the most senior member of the Cabinet. However, when Senanayake died Soulbury, who was abroad, instructed the acting Governor-General not to appoint a successor until his return. On his return he appointed Senanayake’s son Dudley Senanayake, amidst allegations that it was a trust enjoined on him by the elder Senanayake. However, the younger Senanayake resigned shortly after winning the 1952 election, and was replaced by John Kotelawala.

Thus, the Westminster System, as practised in Ceylon from the start, ensured that the powers of the government of the day were not only unchallenged, but also reinforced by other institutions that were originally meant to act as checks and balances. The Courts, the Senate, the Minister of Justice, the various Commissions that appointed persons to high posts, the Governor-General, all came under the authority of the Prime Minister. Though the Prime Minister had to command the support of a majority of the Members of Parliament, he could ensure its continuation since important positions in Parliament, namely membership of the Cabinet as well as the Speakership, were, in effect, his to bestow on whomsoever he wished.

The Island editorial of March 16, 2015 quotes Northern Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran as having stated as follows during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Jaffna: “Thirteenth Amendment can never be the final solution. No wonder you referred to your firm belief in cooperative federalism yesterday in Parliament … Indian Constitution provides for the facilitation of sustainable development, internal security, law and order, policing and protection pertaining to lands and so on within the State. Our inability to function in our Province to the extent you are able to help Gujrat under the Indian Constitution needs to be understood…We need the services of a guarantor and it is our considered view that the Government of India under your stewardship is best suited for this role”.

The Chief Minister’s statement that provisions in the Indian Constitution permit opportunities for growth and development to an extent that is not permitted in Sri Lanka under the 13thAmendment reflects a deeply flawed understanding of the facts. Similar misperceptions are reflected in Prime Minister Modi’s call for the need to go ‘beyond’ the 13th Amendment. To establish whether the views expressed by the Chief Minister and the Indian PM have any substance it is necessary to compare the extents to which powers have been devolved in India and Sri Lanka.

‘Extent of devolution’ ultimately translates into “Powers of Government” at a provincial level. The three distinct Powers of Government identified by Political philosophers at the provincial or any level are Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Furthermore, these philosophers have advocated that the interests of the citizen are best served by keeping them separate. This is reflected in Article 4 of Sri Lanka’s 1978 Constitution. The three organs responsible for exercising the three powers of Government at provincial level are the Provincial council, the Governor and Provincial Judiciary.

DEVOLVED POWERS in INDIA and SRI LANKA

Given below are the powers devolved to the States in India and to the Provinces in Sri Lanka in respect of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. It would be evident from the material presented below that despite the fact that the Northern Province in Sri Lanka is very small in every respect of land, (Gujrat being nearly three times the size of the whole of Sri Lanka), population and resources to Gujrat, the extent of powers devolved in both cases are nearly identical.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS of STATES in INDIA

Indian Constitution:

Article 161: 1. “There shall be a council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion”.

2. “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution requires to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion”.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS of PROVINCES in SRI LANKA

13th Amendment:

Article 154F: (1)”There shall be a Board of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head and not more than four other Ministers to aid and advice the Governor of a Province in the exercise of his functions. The Governor shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion”.

(2) “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question in any Court on the ground that he ought or ought not have acted on his discretion. The exercise of the Governor’s discretion shall be on the President’s discretion”.

EXECUTIVE POWERS of STATES in INDIA

Indian Constitution:

Article 153: “The Executive power of state shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution”.

Article 155: “The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”.

EXECUTIVE POWERS of PROVINCES in SRI LANKA

13thAmendment:

Article 154c: “Executive power extending to the matter with respect to which a Provincial Council has power to make statutes shall be exercised by the Governor of the Province for which that Provincial Council is established, either directly or through Ministers of the of the Board of Ministers, or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with Article 154F”.

Article 154B: (1) “There shall be a Governor for each Province for which a Provincial Council has been established in accordance with Article 154A”.

(2) “The Governor shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand, and shall hold office, in accordance with Article 4 (b) during the pleasure of the President”.

JUDICIAL POWERS of STATES in INDIA

Indian Constitution:

Article 214: “There shall be a High Court for each State”.

Article 215: “Every High Court shall be court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself”.

Article 216: “Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint”.

Article 217: “Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court….”.

JUDICIAL POWERS of PROVINCES in SRI LANKA

13thAmendment:

Article 154P:

(1) “There shall be a High Court Judge for each Province…Each such High Court shall be designated as the High Court of the relevant Province”.

(2) “The Chief Justice shall nominate, from among Judges of the High Court of Sri Lanka such number of Judges as may be necessary to each such High Court…”.

GROUNDLESS CLAIMS of HELPLESSNESS

It is evident from the foregoing that in respect of Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers the provisions granted to States in India are identical for all intents and purposes in scope, content, and in fact the very language to those granted to Provinces in Sri Lanka. Under the circumstances, the potential exists for the 36 devolved subjects in the Provincial List (List I) and the additional 36 subjects in the Concurrent List (List III) to be developed to the maximum extent possible under the Sri Lankan Constitution.

As far as development activities are concerned the reason for Chief Minister Wigneswaran’s inability to accomplish what has been achieved in Gujrat by Mr. Modi is because Mr. Modi does not waste his time in delusional distractions such as the Chief Minister has done in accusing successive Sri Lankan Governments of Genocide that divert attention from burning issues following 30 years of a conflict initiated in the pursuit of another delusional notion of a separate state. If instead, the Chief Minister acquaints himself of the powers granted to Provincial Councils under the Constitution he would realize that he is constitutionally as well off in respect of devolved powers as Mr. Modi was when he was Chief Minister of Gujrat. If he and his Council fail to deliver, it would be only due to their collective inabilities and not due to constitutional shortcomings.

For instance, the Chief Minister could exploit the provisions in Article 21 of the Provincial Council List that state: “Subject to the formulation and implementation of National Policy in regard to development and planning, the power to promote, establish and engage in agriculture, industrial, commercial and trading enterprises and other income-generating projects, within the Province without prejudice to the power of the Government and public corporations to have such enterprises and projects”.

This provision could be exploited to develop an ICT Industry that has links with the ICT industry in Gujrat that today is considered to be the second best in the world. To do so the Chief Minister The state owned Wide Area Network is the largest IP-based ICT network in Asia Pacific Region and second largest in the world, connecting 26 districts and 225 talukas through 12,000 nodes.[citation needed] More than 900,000 internet users and all villages are connected with broadband internet.[citation needed] The state registered 12.8% agricultural growth in the last five years against the national average of 2%.[102]The state owned Wide Area Network is the largest IP-based ICT network in Asia Pacific Region and second largest in the world, connecting 26 districts and 225 talukas through 12,000 nodes.[citation needed] More than 900,000 internet users and all villages are connected with broadband internet.[citation needed] The state registered 12.8% agricultural growth in the last five years against the national average of 2%.[102]The state owned Wide Area Network is the largest IP-based ICT network in Asia Pacific Region and second largest in the world, connecting 26 districts and 225 talukas through 12,000 nodes.[citation needed] More than 900,000 internet users and all villages are connected with broadband internet.[citation needed] The state registered 12.8% agricultural growth in the last five years against the national average of 2%.[102]The state owned Wide Area Network is the largest IP-based ICT network in Asia Pacific Region and second largest in the world, connecting 26 districts and 225 talukas through 12,000 nodes.[citation needed] More than 900,000 internet users and all villages are connected with broadband internet.[citation needed] The state registered 12.8% agricultural growth in the last five years against the national average of 2%.[102]should persuade his kith and kin abroad to invest in the ICT sector and make it as vibrant a sector as it is in Gujrat so that the unemployed youth could find meaningful employment without becoming alcoholics due to lack of opportunities for gainful livelihoods. Instead of addressing such burning issues the Chief Minister’s distraction with issues such as Genocide that have no bearing on the livelihood of the Tamil community that elected him, reflects a deeply flawed sense of responsibility on his part and a betrayal of the trust placed by the electorate that made him the Chief Minister.

Another area that the Chief Minister could be meaningfully engaged is to use his legal background to study the Indian Constitution; a task that would bring much needed relief to the fishing industry. If he does so he would realize that according to Article 57 “Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters” is in List 1 – Union List. When India fishermen enter Sri Lankan waters they operate beyond India’s territorial waters. Therefore, it should be a subject that should come under the jurisdiction of the Union Government of India and NOT a subject that involves the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, Sri Lanka should not be engaging in discussions with the State Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Trade Unions associated with fishing. Instead, Sri Lanka should engage with the Union Government in Delhi, meaning dealing directly with PM Modi and if necessary even bring the issue to the attention of the International Court of Justice if the Union Government fails to resolve a matter that is essentially internal to India.

CONCLUSION

The material presented above demonstrates that constitutional provisions in respect of devolved powers to States in India are almost identical to the Provinces in Sri Lanka. Therefore, if it was possible for Gujrat to make significant progress through devolved powers it should be possible for the Northern Provincial Council to achieve similar results under the 13thAmendment provided they have the needed competencies. Recognizing this fact by Prime Minister Modi and by Chief Minister C.V.Wigneswaran means there is no need to go “beyond” what is already in place.

Under the circumstances, the failure to realize what is possible under the powers devolved could only be due to the inability of the Chief Minister and his Council to deliver. Attempts to cover up deficiencies in performance by frivolous distractions such as charges of Genocide that have no bearing in restoring the lives of a community that sacrificed a whole generation in pursuit of a misbegotten dream of a separate State at the insistence of a misguided leadership that even today continues to mislead the community is to shift focus from real issues. Such subterfuges are not sustainable. It would not be too long before the real reasons for the inability to perform to the extent Gujarat did are found out.

As soon as Mr. Maithripala Sirisena became the President of Sri Lanka, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the British Tamil Forum (BTF) issued statements and reminded President-elect the need to “urgently” address the minority’s concerns. BTFstated that only a political solution recognising the right to self-determination of the Tamil nation in Sri Lanka can address core issues of autonomy to the Tamil people,de-militarisation of the Tamil areas and cooperation with the UNHRS’s international inquiry.

The TNA and the BTF statements indicate a solution that aims at sharing power on the basis of the principle of “territoriality”. Territoriality uses geographical areas to create and administer autonomous regions. The principle of territorial power sharing was initially recommended as a second tier of government by the Donoughmore Commissioners in 1928. However, it was recommended not to address Tamil nationalist concerns, yet to bring structural changes to the constitution to reduce the level of centralisation that the British rulers used in order to consolidate the power of the colonial state.

Territoriality in SL

The principle of territoriality was adopted to guide negotiations on power-sharing between the Centre and the ‘national areas’ of the Tamils by the Federal party (FP) in the mid-1950s to claim ‘separate historical past’ of the Tamils that the FP claimed. After several unsuccessful attempts in 1957, 1960 and 1964-65, a second tier of government was adopted by the introduction of District Councils in 1981 as a result of negotiations between the United National Party (UNP) government and the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), the successor of the FP.

After the riots in 1983, the TULF and the Indian government insisted in abandoning the District Council system in order to bring a larger administrative system, the provincial councils in 1987. The Provincial Council system was adopted and incorporated as the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution of 1978 as a result of pressure from the Indian government. The provincial councils were modelled on the power of the states of the Indian Union, yet preserved the Sri Lankan unitary system.

Wrong Principle

The principle of territoriality as a type of ‘partitioned decisionmaking’ in sharing power was not the best principle to divide the centre and the local in Sri Lanka at least for the following reasons:

Territoriality is only a proxy for ethnic Tamils, yet extends its effects to other ethnic groups residing in the Northern and the Eastern provinces. According to 2001 (provisional) census of the Department of Census and Statistics, 70.7 percent of Indian Tamils, 16.9 percent of Muslims (Moor), 11.2 percent of Sinhalese residing in the Northern and the Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka (Jaffna, Mannar, Vavuniya, Mulathivu, Killinochchi, Batticaloa, Amapara and Trincomalee Districts) with 1.2 percent of other ethnic groups. Hence, it is evident that the principle of territoriality is only a proxy for ethnic Tamils, yet not a fair principle for 29.3 percent of the non-Tamils residing in the Northern and the Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka.

Territorial power sharing receives wider opposition from the majority Sinhalese and the Muslims. Especially, majority Sinhalese view devolution of power as the first step in creating separate areas for Tamils in the North and the East.

Furthermore, majority Sinhalese think that the territorial power sharing mechanism will threaten the territorial integrity of the state. Even today, the centre is reluctant to release land and the police powers to the provincial councils.

Hence, it is practically impossible to reach a consensus between different ethnic groups even to fully implement the 13th amendment to the constitution. Therefore, it is hard to assume that the principle of territoriality will deliver a long lasting solution to the Ethnic issue in Sri Lanka.

Finally, other appropriate principles exist in addressing power sharing issues in Sri Lanka in addition to ‘territorial power sharing’ principle. Therefore, it is a pity that the architectures of Sri Lankan power sharing models did not even try to test other principles in power sharing and kept blindly believing in the principle of territoriality for decades without questioning its validity in terms of finding a lasting solution to the ethnic issue in the Sri Lanka.

Power Sharing Mechanisms

Different mechanism can be adopted when initiating the transition from civil wars in terms of sharing power. Amongst them are central power sharing, territorial power sharing, military power sharing and economic power sharing mechanisms. The central power sharing mechanism distributes executive political power in the core governing institutions in the central government among different ethnic groups.

As noted previously, the territorial power sharing mechanism decentralises power by sharing power with different geographical areas. The military power sharing mechanism integrates different ethnic groups to the military by changing the ethnic composition of the military. The economic power sharing mechanism tries to address issues related distributive justice as well as issues related to control of economic resources.

Central Power Sharing

According to a recent study by Matthew Hoddie (Texas A&M University) and Caroline Hartzell (Gettysburg College) that examined 38 post civil war peace settlements reached between 1945 and 1998, 30 out of 38 peace agreements, or 79 percent of the total, included provisions for ‘central’ power sharing.

The ‘central power sharing’ mechanism shares or divides political power in the central government among ethnic groups in at least three different ways. First, by adopting the principle of electoral proportional representation (PR system) or similar system. So, different ethnic groups can elect their representative to the legislature of the central government.

Second, different ethnic groups will agree to proportionally allocate decision and policy making power to positions in courts, commissions, the civil and foreign services, and other corresponding offices.

Third, different ethnic groups are guaranteed that in the executive of the national government the power will be shared proportionately when giving ministerial, sub-ministerial, and cabinet positions.

Appropriate Mechanisms

Despite its forceful adaptation in the past, the territorial power sharing mechanism has proved futile in reaching consensus amongst different ethnic groups in Sri Lanka in finding a sustainable solution.

However, in contrast to the territorial mechanism, central power sharing mechanism will either neutralise or at least reduce the majority Sinhalese opposition to share power with minorities as the mechanism will not threaten the territorial integrity of the state and as such will reduce the fear of secession.

Furthermore, central power sharing mechanism will guarantee rights and powers of all ethnic groups according to the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the mechanism has been more common (79 percent) in civil war settlements than other types of power sharing mechanisms, namely territorial, military and economic power sharing mechanisms, thus, proven to be successful.

Therefore, central power sharing mechanism is more appropriate and less controversial than the already adopted territorial power sharing mechanism in Sri Lanka. However, the central power sharing mechanism should be coupled with a partitioned decisionmaking power sharing principle that extends its jurisdiction only to members of a particular ethnic group and not to all residents within the territory.

The principle is called Ethnocorporatism that creates such institutions as communal legislative chambers that adopt separate policies for their respective ethnic groups or communal bureaucratic administrations, such as separate school systems for different ethnic groups residing in the same District or Province. Therefore, the principle will be welcomed by Sinhalese, Muslims, Indian Tamils and others residing in the other areas of the country as well.

The principle of Ethnocorporatism was successfully adopted even in the Ottoman Empire to grant autonomy to non-Muslim communities. Unlike the principle of territorial power sharing, Ethnocorporatism will not threaten the territorial integrity of a country. Moreover, the military and economic power sharing mechanisms also can come into play with central power sharing mechanism and Ethnocorporatism in finding an appropriate solution in sharing power between the centre and different ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.

The way forward

Hence, the time has come to question the traditional wisdom that promotes the principle of ‘territorial’ power sharing in finding a sustainable solution to the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka. However, the President Maithripala Sirisena’s government needs to initiate a much wider discourse to evaluate all the available power sharing principles and mechanisms before succumb to group pressures that promote territorial autonomy for the Tamils residing in North-Eastern Sri Lanka.

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) said that it will seek to discuss the devolution of powers to the provinces when it meets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Sri Lanka.

Modi is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka on March 13, his first since taking office last year and which will also be the first bilateral visit by an Indian prime minister to Sri Lanka in over 25 years.

India has been backing devolving powers to the provinces in Sri Lanka under an agreement reached between India and Sri Lanka in 1987 as part of a solution to the ethnic conflict.

TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran said they will discuss with Modi issues concerning the 13th Amendment which allows the provincial councils in Sri Lanka to have extensive powers including land and police powers.

We are driven by likes and dislikes at the primary stage of life. Then in high-school of life (secondary stage) we are driven by rights and wrongs. In University stage (tertiary) – we are driven by karma.

Many of us in the Sri Lankan Diaspora are physically in tertiary stage but our minds are still at secondary and in a few cases primary stages. This confirms mental disorders. Unless our discussions are as per the mind that is able to manage the body / inputs and therefore its expressions / outcomes, we deteriorate the value of our relationships and our environments.

A strong mind is able to consolidate the physical experience and raise it to the higher level – where it becomes the ‘home/system’ that provides support for our juniors to enjoy good quality life. The physical level enjoyment at primary stage is our animal stage. At this stage we are not aware of the deeper causes – but enjoy as per physical possession and control. At tertiary stage also we are not conscious of the reasons for effects – but naturally enjoy or suffer from ‘free’ energies beyond our immediate control. Groups that are able to connect the primary to the tertiary – the physical to the universal – are sovereign groups. The path through which the connection is made is the appropriate Law for that group.

Devolution of power is of value when a group is too large for the mind to make that connection. Laws give us the authority to allocate Rights and Wrongs so that the outcomes could be consolidated to become positive energies at tertiary level. Laws that do not lead us to positive values towards enjoyment of higher joys – become burdens on society and lead to negative energies in tertiary stage. The net value that we contribute is the starting point for the next generation and determines the quality of their life at primary level itself.

Whether it be families, workplaces or countries – most do not follow the laws and policies consciously all the time. Often leaders with the authority to form laws – introduce laws that fit their primary stage in that institution. Physical pleasures and pain drive us at primary stage in family life; money at workplace and votes / citizens’ approval at country level. At tertiary stage we live with the net effect of our own individual karma.

Australian of Sri Lankan origin – Maduranga Ratnayake discusses in his Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘A Tale of Two Terms’ – the legal validity of the right to third term by the current President of Sri Lanka who eliminated through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution – the limit on the number of terms of Presidency by any person. If we participated in that outcome at our own levels – we would enjoy or suffer the outcome of our contribution beyond our duty at tertiary level of our life. We would also influence outcomes as global citizens through our descendants (physical and / or mental) in Sri Lanka where the physical outcomes are manifested in various forms at various levels.

Maduranga Ratnayake as per his knowledge of law (secondary stage) concludes:

‘When at the point of time the present President ends his second term the Constitution contains no provision that prevents him from seeking to be elected for a third term, and similarly a former President should have no legal impediment to be contesting at the next presidential election either (However, it must be observed that the removal of the two-term ceiling on a President’s term of office is a constitutional disaster).’

The above conclusion confirms that the 18th Amendment is considered to be a burden on Sri Lankans. Likewise the laws of war between two ethnicities (i.e. International Laws) as stated by the UN – seem to be a burden on the Sri Lankan Government. In 2009, the Sri Lankan Government declared self-governance when it claimed the protection of Sovereignty by banning UN observers from the scene of physical birth of outcomes. The parallel of this by Tamils resulted in the 13th Amendment in 1987.

In both cases – once devolution is declared – the leaders ought to have been facilitated to produce the outcomes visible to the Public. Where it is self-declared – the leaders had the responsibility to facilitate themselves. Tamils led by LTTE failed to operate independent of Central Government and the latter in turn continued to attract criticism from international bodies for failing to produce positive outcomes confirming sovereignty including from its own ethnic group.

Politics is the primary stage in governance. Administration is secondary. In most progressive systems the limit to Presidency/Head of State seems to be two terms so that the negative energies of the individual do not affect the citizens. If we take as example Australian Prime Minister John Howard (against whom I took legal action in 1999 on the basis of Racial Discrimination – secondary stage)– his third term (commencing on 10 November 2001) was riddled with Terrorism anxieties for Australians – especially due to Bali Bombing preceded by 9/11 during which attack Mr. Howard was with the American President. Mr. Howard’s actions against Boat Asylum Seekers prior to these election – were interpreted as being politically motivated to win the elections to become PM for a third term.

In 2007 Mr. Howard lost his eligibility to represent his electorate in parliament- to use Mr. Ratnayake’s language – the franchise was lost. To me this was due to the negative Energy accumulated by using votes instead of Rights and Wrongs through Public Administration in second term that led to this disaster in the tertiary stage which began effectively in March 2002. Given that our electoral term is three years and Mr. Howard came into the leadership position in March 1996 – the third term commenced in March 2002. It foreshadowed itself through Mr. Howard’s presence with the American President during 9/11attack. This was later confirmed in October 2002 through Bali Bombing. Through my legal actions I foreshadowed this to Mr. Howard. But to him I was just another migrant voter/number.

Those of us in Tertiary stages do influence one way or the other. Those who are indifferent influence through negative Energy to add to their own deterioration of the mind. Those of us who actively participate despite failures get the ‘insight’ to know that we have mitigated the damages for our People – despite negative leaders.

I do not know whether Mr. Rajapakse is positive or negative for Sri Lankans as a whole. So far as an individual I have not felt the need to seek his direct ruling in Administration. I have been thus far able to use my own Truth effectively to deliver service to the needy.

Mr. Rajapakse’s strength as well as his weakness are the people physically close to him – now and his predecessors as his mentors. This is because Sri Lanka is in effect largely a subjective system and does not suit democracy except in multicultural areas. While individual Sri Lankan leaders may blame him for the deterioration in law and order by measuring through the system of democracy which is foreign to majority Sri Lankans at the Secondary Stage – many seem to ‘forget’ that the current physical environment has been made more conducive to allocation of Rights and Wrongs (secondary stage) due to the victory over LTTE which was considered a problem group by many outside Sri Lanka also. Tamils paid their dues painfully by escalating the problem to global level, on the basis of human losses. Lack of investment in the system of Democracy through Public Administration – strongly indicates the need for accelerated investment in this area if a third term is to be positive for Mr. Rajapakse. Forming coalitions with strong investors in Democracy would deliver such an outcome.

To enjoy tertiary stage of life – one needs largely to be an observer / a witness through conscience. One driven by votes in third term is destined to suffer due to negative Energy. The parallel in commoner’s life is an old person being driven by the pleasures of the flesh resulting in frustrations and mental disorders.

If on the other hand the third term is merely to observe and confirm the position of self-governance – then that is a heavenly term / Nirvana.

Mr. Presiding Member, we are debating a Bill that deals with Prescription, a Bill that is being brought to bring about certain changes in the existing laws pertaining to prescription in regard to the category of persons defined in the new Bill as “disadvantaged persons”. That is, persons who have been unable to pursue their rights shall be entitled to avail themselves of the benefits conferred by this Act until 12 months after the coming into operation of this Act.

In other words, Sir, the original law pertaining to prescription would not apply during the period when they were disadvantaged persons. Thereby, the law of prescription would not run so as to deprive them of title to the land to which they were entitled to. As long as that person continues to be a disadvantaged person, the benefits of this law would be available both to him and to his successors in title. This goes on the basis that many militant groups have taken over lands belonging to civilians and these civilians, over a period of time, after 1983 and particularly until the conclusion of the war in 2009 – it is a continuing phenomenon – have not been able to take any action whatever for various reasons and therefore, when they were in that disadvantaged position of not being able to avail themselves of their rights under the law, the law relating to prescription should not run against them as the law existed earlier. That is the purpose of this law and in that sense, I must say that it provides relief to certain persons. But, one thing, I do not understand, which is in Clause 5. I do not want to get into a debate with the Hon. Minister, but I would like him to think about this. Clause 5 states, “A disadvantaged person who was unable to pursue his rights shall be entitled to avail himself of the benefits conferred by this Act until twelve months after the coming into operation of this Act”, which means that he will be entitled to the benefit of this Act for a period of 12 months after the Act comes into operation. But, if that person has been a disadvantaged person until the Bill becomes law, then in the normal course, the law of prescription will not run against him for a further ten years. So, why should that be confined to 12 months? I do not understand the logic behind this because if a person has been a disadvantaged person until the Bill has been passed and ceases to be a disadvantaged person only when the Bill is passed, he will be entitled to file an action within ten years. So, why should that be confined to twelve months? In the normal run of things, in the normal operation of even the existing law pertaining to prescription, this man will be entitled to take an action against a trespasser, a squatter, a person unlawfully occupying his land for a period of ten years from the time he ceases to be a disadvantaged person. So, I do not see the logic behind that period being reduced to 12 months under Section 5 of this Ordinance. I would like the Hon. Minister to give that matter a little thought. This also would apply largely, though the Minister said that it applies to the whole country, it is certainly a law applicable to the whole country, but in operation it will be largely applicable to the North and the East where land issues have been quite common and exist in large numbers.

Sir, land is the most complex problem in the North and the East and this relates to both private land and state land. The provisions of this Bill will of course relate to private land. But our problems in regard to state land are very many. Problems relating to both private land and state land are multifaceted in the North-East. I would like to use this Debate to identify some of those problems. There have been High Security Zones in the North and the East. Some of the zones have been possessed by the armed forces as High Security Zones. Some have been legally proclaimed. Others have not been legally proclaimed but have been physically possessed as High Security Zones. All these High Security Zones comprise of private land. What is the rationale behind a High Security Zone? There was a time when the LTTE was in existence, LTTE was possessed of long range artillery. They were able to attack installations of the armed forces from some distance using such high range artillery and in consequence of this, there was a need to declare a High Security Zone preventing even normal civilians living in that zone so as to ensure that these installations were safe and that the LTTE would be kept a distance away that would ensure that their long range artillery would not reach these installations in these High Security Zones. Now, the LTTE is not there. The artillery is not there. What is the need for the High Security Zone? It is not necessary any longer. So, what is the purpose in the army continuing to occupy the land which was being held as a High Security Zone purely for security reasons against the LTTE and the LTTE’s long range artillery? When the LTTE is not there, the long range artillery is not there, you are in complete control of all land, what is the need? Now, this land is to be acquired both in the North and the East. Some parts of these lands have been released, but substantial parts of these lands have not been released. The civilians who owned these lands have gone to the Supreme Court both from Walikamam in the North and Sampur in the East. The Government, through the Attorney General, has given commitments to the Supreme Court that these people will be resettled on these lands. It is a matter of record, but the lands have not been returned to those people. I have raised this matter in regard to the land in Sampur in this Parliament and the Minister of Economic Development interrupted me to state that except for a particular land required for the Coal Power Plant in Sampur, people can resettle on all the other lands. That matter is recorded in the Hansard. But, these commitments have not been kept and these civilians are unable to get back to their lands. A large number of houses, a large number of schools, a large number of temples within these lands have been destroyed. Some lands are possessed by the Army, some lands are possessed by the Navy. They have been used for purpose of occupation, for purpose of cultivation, for purpose of recreation and several other purposes. Tennis courts have come up on these lands, golf courses have come up on these lands, swimming pools have come up on these lands, luxury bungalows for occupation by security personnel have come up on these lands, lands on which our people lived and from which our people, farmers derived their livelihood. They have been taken over, they have been used in this way and tens of thousands of Tamil civilian families are being kept out of these lands for these reasons because the lands are being used by the Armed forces in this way.

These persons are even more disadvantaged than anyone else. You have brought a Bill to Parliament claiming to confer some benefits on some disadvantaged people, there maybe a few people, but what about these people? These people are more disadvantaged than anyone else. Can anyone deny that? There are not just a few people. There are tens of thousands of Tamil families in this position. Why is there no serious effort to address this issue? Despite all the protests and demonstrations that are taking place in the North and the East, despite the matter having been raised in Parliament on several occasions, why is this issue not being addressed seriously? Is this attitude of the Government not indicative of the Government having a sinister objective? I want to pose this question.

Lands have been taken over on various pretexts: security, development, occupation, cultivation, tourism and recreation. This is all for the benefit of the majority community. At the expense of tens of thousands of Tamil families, persons of the majority community are being settled on these lands. Who are the members of the armed forces? The armed forces are almost exclusively Sinhalese. When they come into possession of these lands and when the Tamil civilians are permanently kept out, what will happen? These Armed forces will continue to occupy these lands, they will cultivate these lands, they will derive their livelihood from these lands and they will continue to live in the North and the East. Is this not yet another way of settling the majority community people on lands which have belonged to Tamil civilians for generations and centuries on which they have lived, on which they have farmed, which they have cultivated, and making these lands available to the majority community?

Apart from that, Sir, persons of the majority community are being settled in various areas in the North and the East. This is particularly intensive in the Trincomalee District, the northernmost district in the Eastern Province and in the Mullaitivu District, the southernmost district of the Northern Province. Around 4,000 to 5,000 new voters of the majority community have been registered in the Mullaitivu District since 2009. My information is that these persons had never been registered as voters before; for the first time, they have been registered as voters. I would not make this allegation if these were persons who were displaced and who have come back. That, I am told, is not the position. These persons were never registered before, but since 2009, around 4,000 to 5,000 people have been registered as voters in the Northern Province, which shows that these persons have been settled on these lands after the war came to an end. This is a serious question. They have been brought in anew. All these actions have State patronage from the highest level to the lowest level, from the national level to the district level.

Private lands from which Tamils were displaced and which were occupied forcibly by the majority community are sought to be acquired by the State to be given to those who occupy the lands unlawfully. This is happening in Sivayogapuram in Trincomalee in close proximity to the Nadesar Temple at a place called Kanniya. Why is it being done? You are talking of disadvantaged persons. Here, these persons were disadvantaged; they were displaced from their lands; they were driven out and other persons of the majority community occupy those lands. Are you prepared to give an assurance to this House to take up this matter and ensure that these persons who were displaced, who were disadvantaged are enabled to get back their lands if they take legal action? Why is the Government acquiring these lands so as to deprive them of the remedy which you are providing under this statute? You are bringing a Bill to Parliament, stating that you want to give such disadvantaged people some rights. But, those rights can never be enjoyed by them because the Government is acquiring these lands.

Sir, Hindu religious places have been destroyed; they have been desecrated. We have revealed information in regard to all this to Government; we have written to the Government; we have written to the President and we have raised this matter on the Floor of this House on a number of occasions. New majority Buddhist places of worship are coming up in the North and the East. I do not mind the statue of Lord Buddha being installed anywhere. We all venerate Lord Buddha. I do not want my Sinhalese friends to misunderstand me. We all venerate Lord Buddha. But, they are coming up even in places where not one Sinhala Buddhist person lives. What is the purpose? Why is this being done? Lord Buddha’s statue is being installed in various parts of the North and the East where the Sinhala Buddhist people do not live.

Why is this happening? Hindu cultural places of great veneration have been forcibly taken over. I want to refer to one particular instance, Sir. There is a place called Kanniya in Trincomalee, which has seven hot wells. I must narrate to this House the history of these hot wells. Ravana, Sir, a great historical figure, went to the Koneswaran Temple in Trincomalee, Koneswaran which is referred in the Puranas as Dakshina Kailas, as the southern abode of Lord Shiva. He was so impressed by the lingam there that he cut the rock wanting to take the lingam for worship by his mother. Even today as one enters Koneswaran, on the right hand side one sees the cut on the rock which is called the Ravanan Vettu – “the Ravana’s cut”. When Ravana cut the rock in this way to take the lingam away, Lord Shiva was said to have got enraged and with his big toe he moved the rock. Ravana got trapped in the rock. His mother who was in India heard about this and thought that Ravana was killed. She died of shock. But, Ravana was not killed. He was only unable to take the rock away. Ravana implored Lord Shiva that he be pardoned for his fault. Lord Shiva pardoned him and Ravana wanted to perform the 31st Day Ceremony of his mother. He went with his spear to a place close by called Kanniya where he dug with his spear in seven places. There were seven sprouts of hot water, each of a different temperature. That is the origin of the seven hot wells in Kanniya in Trincomalee. There was a Pillaiyar Temple there and over generations and centuries the Hindu-Tamil people have been going there and performing the 31st Day Ceremony of their kith and kin. Today some statues of the Lord Buddha have been installed there. I have gone and seen it myself. At one time I wrote to the DIG of the area. He stopped it. There was no statue of Lord Buddha at that point of time. Now, some statues of Lord Buddha have been installed. A new passage is being opened up to the hot wells in such a way, that as you go along the path where the Buddhist Statues have been installed, you thereby take over and annex the seven hot wells to that area. The old road to the seven hot wells is sought be closed and this new road is sought to be constructed. Why is all this being done? The Pillaiyar Temple which was there has been desecrated. Lord Pillaiyar has been planted under a temporary shed; he is presently under a temporary shed. So, Sir, one can see that some people are working on these designs; some people are very assiduously, very studiously pursuing a programme which has certain objectives. This is, Sir, nothing short of being absolutely diabolical and outrageous denying the Hindu-Tamils of an ancient Hindu religious and cultural right. They cannot even freely perform the 31st Day Ceremonies of their kith and kin in this area, a right which they have enjoyed from Ravana’s time.

I would invite the members of the international community to come to Kanniya in Trincomalee and see for themselves what is happening; see for themselves the situation. We do not want these types of things to happen. But, you are compelling us to make such an appeal to the international community. I wrote to the President; I wrote to the Hon. Basil Rajapaksa. I have raised this matter in Parliament. You do not reply. You do not respond. But, you quietly carry on with your programme of work and your programme of work is being completed. Why is all this being done?. All this is being done because you want to change the demographic composition of the North and the East and you want to change the cultural and linguistic identity of the districts in the North and the East. These things are being done with a definite purpose, the purpose being to change the demographic composition of the Northern and Eastern Provinces and the cultural and linguistic identity of the Northern and Eastern Provinces so as to make a political resolution, a political solution irrelevant and unnecessary. That is the objective with which you are pursuing this agenda. This is not good for the country. I am not saying these things because I want to cast any slurs or aspersions on anyone. But, I am saying these things because this is not good for the country. In this context, Sir, it is necessary that I refer to certain irrefutable facts which, I think, have a significant bearing on the future of this country and which also have certain geopolitical and strategic dimensions.

I want to refer, Sir, to the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement signed on the 29th of July, 1987. I will not read the whole Agreement but I will read certain important parts of it which are relevant.

Paragraph 1.1 of it states, I quote:

“desiring to preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka ;”

That is sacrosanct. That is something which could not be touched, “to preserve the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka”. That is the entire basis, the entire foundation on which the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement was signed. Then, Paragraph 1.2 states,

“acknowledging that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic and a multi-lingual plural society consisting, inter alia, of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims (Moors), and Burghers ;

Then, Paragraph 1.3 states,

“recognising that each ethnic group has a distinct cultural and linguistic identity which has to be carefully nurtured ;”

Then, Paragraph 1.4 states,

“also recognising that the Northern and the Eastern Provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples, who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups ;”

Further, Paragraph 1.5 states,

“Conscious of the necessity of strengthening the forces contributing to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, and preserving its character as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious plural society, in which all citizens can live in equality, safety and harmony, and prosper and fulfil their aspirations ;

Then, Paragraph 2.1 goes on to say,

“Since the Government of Sri Lanka proposes to permit adjoining Provinces to join to form one administrative unit and also by a Referendum to separate as may be permitted to the Northern and Eastern Provinces as outlined below : ”

Sir, Paragraph 2.2 of the Agreement states, I quote:

“During the period, which shall be considered an interim period, (i.e. from the elections to the Provincial Council, as specified in para 2.8 to the date of the referendum as specified in para 2.3, the Northern and Eastern Provinces as now constituted, will form one administrative unit, having one elected Provincial Council. Such a unit will have one Governor, one Chief Minister and one Board of Ministers.”

Paragraph 2.3 states that there will be a referendum on or before a certain date and the rest of it deals with the referendum.

Now, I want to say this very clearly, Sir. That is why I referred to Trincomalee and Mullaitivu earlier. Trincomalee is the northern most district in the Eastern Province and Mullaitivu is the southern most district in the Northern Province. All these actions of the Government and persons who are working with the Government are concentrated largely in Mullaitivu and Trincomalee because you want to break the linguistic contiguity of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces. That clearly shows that you are pursuing a definite sinister objective which cannot be permitted and this is why I say that these actions of yours have geopolitical and geo-strategic dimensions and there can be consequences which will not be to the benefit of this country. As a Sri Lankan, I have a right to ask that this country be not placed in jeopardy by reason of such actions. I have a right to ask that these actions of yours be terminated because if these action of yours are not terminated, eventually great harm can fall on Sri Lanka.

I also want to read, Sir, a further paragraph. The Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe, the Leader of the Opposition, a couple of days ago raised a question in regard to the Trincomalee Port and the new facility that the Government is contemplating in Trincomalee with the involvement of some foreign power. He said that that would be in violation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. When you seek to change the demographic composition of the North and the East, are you not violating the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement where there is a clear acknowledgement that the Northern and Eastern Provinces have been the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people? On that basis, the Northern and Eastern provinces must become one unit of devolution with one Governor, one Chief Minister, one Provincial Council. Are you not violating the conditions of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement which flow on that basis which recognizes Sri Lanka as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, plural society, each people, the Sinhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims having a separate identity which must be nurtured, which recognizes the Northern and Eastern Provinces as the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people on the basis of which they can be one unit? Are you not violating all these provisions? This is the question, Sir, I wish to pose.

The para 2(ii) of the annexure to the Agreement refers to the question that the Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe raised. It states, I quote:

“Trincomalee or any other ports in Sri Lanka will not be made available for military use by any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests.”

That is what the Agreement states. Now, when you seek to alter, when you seek to change vital parts of this Agreement, am I wrong in saying that you are working with an insidious objective, which is to change the demographic composition so as to have your own way and do what you please? This is not acceptable, Sir, and if this continues, I would think that it would not be good for Sri Lanka.

I also want to refer to one other matter before I conclude, Sir, and it is this. Your Bill refers to “disadvantaged persons”. The Tamil people in this country are disadvantaged in many respects, not merely what is contained in your Bill. We all know that under the Decentralized Budget, every Member of Parliament is given Rs. 5 million. The North and the East, in the course of the 30-year conflict, suffered the worst damage. Our people suffered the most; the Tamil people suffered the most. They were killed the most; their assets were destroyed the most; they suffered denial and deprivation the most. The Tamil Members of Parliament, except for those few who are with the Government, were given Rs. 5 million each under the Decentralized Budget. All the other Members of Parliament have been given Rs. 30 million – Rs. 5 million plus another Rs. 25 million. They have been given Rs. 30 million!

We represent the Tamil people substantially. The vast majority of the seats of the North and the East, where the Tamil people have voted and elected their Members, have come to us, but we are given only Rs. 5 million; everybody else is given Rs. 30 million. Is this fair? Is this just? Is this conscionable? How can you do this? You are mere trustees of Government money; you are mere trustees of Government property having been elected by the voters. We also have been elected by the voters. Are our people not sovereign? Are our people not equal? Are our people second-class citizens? Is that the reason that you are giving the Members of Parliament representing the Tamil people Rs. 5 million while you give all the others Rs. 30 million? I do not want to confront anyone, but I do not want to beg from anyone and my people do not want me to beg. My people are not beggars and they never want me to beg. But, I want you to know, I want the world to know that despite a 30-year conflict and despite all the denial and deprivation, all the immense losses, destruction that we have gone through and when we are the most in need of assistance, we are being given by this Government only Rs. 5 million while all the other Members of Parliament are given Rs. 30 million. Is it conscionable? Is it just? Is it reasonable? I want your conscience to answer this question and I want you to do the right thing. After all, being in power and having the reins of governance is nothing more than a trust reposed in you by the people to do the just and the right thing. You must not assume that such power will be with you forever.

Sir, we were dealing with the Prescription (Special Provisions) Bill. But, I have used the time of the Bill to refer to some of the grave issues particularly pertaining to land, particularly pertaining to the tens of thousands of Tamil families who have not yet been resettled, who have not yet been rehabilitated, who do not have houses, who are living in camps and welfare centres and who do not have proper livelihood still in the North and the East. Can you deny the fact that there are such people in the North and the East and that you are giving Tamil Members of Parliament of the North and the East only Rs. 5 million and others Rs. 30 million? Can you deny that? Is it fair? How can you permit this? Will God pardon you for doing this? I will not take anymore of the time, Mr. Presiding Member.

Thank you.

* Speech made by R. Sampanthan MP, the Tamil National Alliance’s leader, in Parliament on Thursday the 7th of August, on the Prescription (Special Provisions) Bill, illegal possession of land by the military and demographic change in the Northern & Eastern Provinces, violations of the Indo-Lanka Accord and discriminatory allocations under the Decentralized Budget.

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” – Article II, Section 26, Constitution of the Philippines (1987)

DA Rajapaksa became prominent as a key founder of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), along with SWRD Bandaranaike, largely because after their breakaway from the UNP in 1951, with five other MPs, they were the only two who could retain their seats at the 1952 parliamentary elections. SWRD was assassinated in 1959 and DA died in 1967. I had occasion to deliver memorial orations for both of them, for SWRD Bandaranaike in 2004 and DA Rajapaksa in 2010.

There was another reason for the Bandaranaikes or the Rajapaksas to become prominent within the SLFP or its support base. They were political families. Although Mrs. Bandaranaike was not interested in politics initially, she came forward given the crisis within the party after her husband’s assassination. Thereafter, daughter (Chandrika) and son (Anura) also entered politics with somewhat a ‘gender’ balance.

However, from the DA Rajapaksa family, apart from his predecessor brother (DM) and his two sons (George and Lakshman) and one daughter (Nirupama) from George, three sons (Chamal, Mahinda and Basil) have come into politics along with another brother (Gotabhaya) as a clan or a group and dominates the state and the party apparatus today. Most of the arrogant political dynasties are male dominated. The story doesn’t end there. There are two sons from Mahinda and Chamal prominently in politics. This is undoubtedly the most formidable challenge that democracy in Sri Lanka faces today.

SWRD and SLFP

SWRD undoubtedly was the real founder and the visionary of what we know as the SLFP both with its strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, there are no indications whatsoever that he anticipated a ‘dynastic tradition’ within the party of his own or others. He himself was a victim of dynastic tendencies in politics when the first Prime Minister DS Senanayake advised the then Governor General, Lord Soulbury, that his son Dudley Senanayake should be named as the PM in an event of his demise, by passing SWRD and several others in seniority and competence.

There are no indications that SWRD considered politics as a family affair. He had never encouraged his wife, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, to come into politics along with him or after. One may consider it as a ‘macho tendency’ that he was usually accused of, but it was a fact. By the time of his assassination, his two children were too young to be drawn into politics and it is difficult to speculate what he would have done if he survived.

This was the same in the case of many of the first generation of SLFP leaders. Even when DM Rajapaksa died in 1945, DA Rajapaksa was reluctant to contest the by-election although he was involved in his elder brother’s political campaigns before. There are no clear indications that even DA Rajapaksa cultivated his sons to enter into politics. Apart from SWRD and DA, another prominent leader of the SLFP movement was DS Goonesekera. He was the person who was elected at the Madampe Conference in 1951 to negotiate with the UNP leader and the PM, DS Senanayake, before they took a final decision to breakaway and to form a new party. Goonesekera held important portfolios both in SWRD’s and Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s governments. He had a large family of ten children but none of them wanted to enter politics and instead they opted for professional careers (five doctors, three teachers, a lawyer and an engineer).

Dynastic Politics

There are of course no hard and fast rules how politician’s children choose or should choose their future careers. There may be natural tendencies for children to follow political paths/causes of their fathers or mothers. Aung San Suu Kyi is one positive example who opted to enter politics at a later age of her life for the sake of the country. Her father was assassinated in 1947 when she was just a toddler. There is no dynastic intention in her decision to enter politics.

Unfortunately ‘dynastic politics’ has not been limited to royal families or ancient kingdoms. It has on and off become a feature even in democratic and quasi-democratic countries and endemic in South Asia among others continents. In America, Kennedys and the Bush family were much famous. More oligarchic dynasties have prevailed in contemporary non-democratic countries such as North Korea, Cuba and former Libya. The obvious inference is that dynasties closely go hand in hand with centralization and/or authoritarianism.

Within South Asia, India has been famous for political dynasties both at the center as well as the states. The most famous has been the Nehru-Gandhi family. This dynasty has produced three Prime Ministers, Nehru, Indira and Rajiv, and still keeps a strong grip on the Indian National Congress Party. At the state levels, there are competing dynasties aiming at succession like Karunanidhis and Ramachandrens in Tamil Nadu or Mishras and Yadavs in Bihar. Nepal also has been famous for a similar phenomenon. The Koirala family similarly had a grip in politics, until everything went in flames recently, producing four Prime Ministers, Krishna Prasad (father) and Matrika, Bishweshwar and Girija as his sons.

Sri Lanka: Shame or Pride?

Sri Lanka has undoubtedly been no better especially in the case of the SLFP. Some consider this as exemplary and ‘take pride’ in Sri Lanka’s relative merits instead of becoming ashamed of. The Bandaranaike clan has produced two Prime Ministers and one President. However, after CBK the leadership was passed on to Mahinda Rajapaksa and not to Anura Bandaranaike. That was the right thing to do, breaking the dynastic tradition at least partially. Let me relate a personal recollection on the matter.

I met Mahinda Rajapaksa in July 2005 at Nuwaraeliya. The occasion was a workshop organized by the Peace Building Project of the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs for the UPFA parliamentarians and provincial council members in the Central Province. We were discussing the forthcoming presidential elections in a personal conversation. He told me “This women (geni) will not give me nominations.” I said, “No, she cannot and she would not. She is very political and she would follow the political rules.”

The relevance of the above discussion is to emphasize the importance of following rules in politics. The most important rule to follow in Sri Lanka at present is the two term limit for the presidency. Although it has been altered by the infamous 18th Amendment, there is no people’s mandate or moral right for the President Rajapaksa to contest again. Its legal position is also not sacrosanct. After two terms, especially in the position of the presidency, any human person would become weary and exhausted. Then others, mostly siblings, rule the roost. That is very clear in MR today. It is better to handover the baton without being too late. Even in parliamentary systems, the tradition is developing for the same person not to continue for more than two terms in the position of the Prime Minister.

It is for the same reason that anyone should not approve or admire CBK coming back again for the presidential competition. She should keep her dignity and integrity intact in retirement from that office. However, she can or may play a different role in politics or public life given the present crisis situation in the country and in the SLFP.
Succession

In terms of succession, the seniority should come first if the competence is assured. Or a democratic vote within a political party could decide on a succession battle on the proviso that such elections are held democratically and without undue influence of the incumbent. This principle should apply both to the SLFP and the UNP and for any other democratic party.

I have already expressed the view before that it would have been better both for the UNP and Ranil Wickremasinghe personally if he had taken the backstage after repeated defeats for the party. It might be too late now. It is always better for democracy, if circulation of leaders in political parties are ensured. It is unfortunate in Sri Lanka that when people come into position they don’t easily leave whether it is a political position or even a simple academic position from my personal experience. They want to hold on to power.

The chasm of dynastic politics again has raised its ugly head within the UNP in a different form. The rift between Ranil and Sajith, as far as I understand, appears to be a resurrection of JR-Premadasa rift of the past. At least that is the way the Sajith Premadasa camp has projected its leadership challenge within the party – as a resurrection of the Premadasa legacy. That may be one reason why Ranil is reluctant to leave the leadership. But what has to be realized by both factions is that the challenge of the Rajapaksa dynasty is much more formidable and fatal to both factions.

One may argue that dynastic politics in the case of Rajapaksas was a later development or a reaction to the Bandaranaike dynasty. Although CBK came to lead the SLFP after some hesitation and even on the promotion MR in 1993/94, during her tenure, the way MR was treated could not be considered amicable. I was partial witness to this ‘discrimination.’ However, that is not a valid reason to turn the tables and establish his own dynasty, more vociferous than the Bandaranaike dynasty, within the party. CBK’s efforts were not dynastic. The frictions between the two were mostly personal and political.

Rajapaksa Dynasty

The present dynastic project of the Rajapaksas seems to have more profound political and other implications. It is a tragedy for the country. Unlike in the past, the Rajapaksa family has established a strong grip on the state apparatus and in the economy. That can be changed only through a rebellion within the SLFP. I am not saying that the regime cannot be defeated electorally. But one element for the equation should come through the SLFP, not necessarily to bring the UNP into power, but to reinstate democracy in the country beyond partisan affiliations.

It may be true that it was first a given factor, a large number of family members being in politics and another brother’s services being required in the defense sector. However, now the family network has become institutionalized and entrenched within the state apparatus and within the party. The failure of the nation is not rooted in its culture, religion or the people, but in the distorted institutions, both state and party. The leaders are primarily responsible. Otherwise why do we call them leaders?

If this is not changed without delay, both within the party/parties and the State, it would be difficult to alter the situation in the future. What might happen is a catastrophe like in Nepal where legitimacy of the governance completely breaks down and people resort into rebellion against the family oligarchy.

One may ask what is wrong in a family dynasty or dynasties in politics. There are tendencies particularly in South Asia to prefer political families by some voters instead of independent individuals at the leadership. Apart from some cultural reasons, families are considered easy to predict and worthy to rely. However, this is largely among the backward voters, some might consider part of ‘political realism.’ The challenges are more formidable to democracy and good governance, people should be educated on by the parties and the free media. On this last point, let me quote an expert/activist on the subject, C. K. Lal (Human Rights Democracy and Governance: Imagine a New South Asia, p. 3) from our own region (Nepal) as the conclusion.

“But what makes dynastic succession dangerous is the tendency of elected hereditary leaders to concentrate political power in their own hands. Since they thrive because of the politics of patronage, centralization of all authority ensues. Constitutional procedures fall by the wayside as invincible leaders begin to perceive themselves as indispensable. Sadly, this gives rise to submissive tendencies among their followers. One of the ways of countering this trend can perhaps be an effective devolution of power at the provincial level and empowerment of local government units at the grass roots.